My sandbox

Archives (Old comments have been archived.)--CloudSurfer05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archive 2006

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such asTalk:Australia are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at thewelcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. It is great that you have strong feelings on the monarchy in Australia, your views are valid and well articulated, however the only thing relevant to this discussion is whether the Royal Anthem is of sufficient importance to Australia that it needs to be predominately mentioned in the info box. Discussion as to whether Australia should be a republic or what kind of model should be kept to the many chat rooms on the Internet on this topic, not wikipedia. The placement of the Royal Anthem in this article has been discussed at great length, all arguments were made on both sides and a decision was made. Cheers,WikiTownsvillian14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CloudSurfer, thanks for your comment. Every person has an opinion on issues, particularly controversial issues, every editor of wikipedia has personal points of view, nothing wrong with that, but it is a policy of wikipedia that while editing that editors should do so from a neutral point of view. In other words when we edit we do so from a nuetral and logical view point not from our own personal opinions on a subject matter. Someone who has a userbox on their userpage openly saying that they are strongly in favour of gay marriage are not precluded from editing on pages which relate to gay marriage, but they do have to edit from a neutral point of view. For example, I have a personal opinion thatBill Heffernan is a complete tosser, however I will still defend the article about him from anon vandals who wish to point out to the world that he is a complete tosser because it is POV, and while I personally share that POV, I do not do so while editing here. I hope this makes it clear why people's personal view points on a republic or the royal anthem is irrelevant to the discussion. The only thing relevant is how significant (or notable) the royal anthem is to the country of Australia. It has been agreed by consensus that the royal anthem is not of much significance to Australia, particularly not high enough for it to be placed in the country's infobox. I hope this clarifies things for you. Thanks,WikiTownsvillian15:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to revisit theAustralia article on this. Consistency throughout our articles on Commonwealth nations is important, and IMO the push for the RA being removed from the infobox of a FA was misguided. --Pete23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look. Are you aware of the Conduct arbitration goin gon with DreamGuy?Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2. You may something you wish to contrbute. --DashaKat20:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CloudSurfer, you suggested archivingTalk:Dissociative identity disorder. Please refrain from archivingTalk:Dissociative identity disorder, asWikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2 may need to refer to it, and there is a risk of losing information, if you archiveTalk:Dissociative identity disorder. Thanks.

--Standardname01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've letStandardname know I disagree with his position on this. My suspision is that he doesn't understand how the archiving process works. --DashaKat15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CloudSurfer, yousuddenly turn up atTalk:Dissociative identity disorder, and suggestremoving text supporting the disorderDissociative identity disorder, and suggestadding more controversial text;

• do you agree to refrain from removingANY further text from articleDissociative identity disorder, that supports the disorderDissociative identity disorder?DreamGuy hasremoved enough sourced text thatsupportsDissociative identity disorder;
• do you agree to refrain from addingANY more controversial text to articleDissociative identity disorder?DreamGuyreinstated enoughcontroversial text.

--Standardname02:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, and I will tell him as much. --DashaKat15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I didn't realise that there was a conversation on Talk:Samoa, but regarding the fact that he is known asHis Highness, could just show their respect, as the Philippine President is known asHer Excellency. Hope we can hear from the Press Secretariat soon.Therequiembellishere01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently went to see on this also & never saw a reply back yet for the past month now. Has there been any verification come back yet on what was discussed before? thanksThat-Vela-Fella06:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again & after a year passing by, I saw no update onTalk:Samoa dealing with the issue under the topic "Parliamentary democracy vs Parliamentary republic". Until there is definitive closure on this, it'll be tagged as needing confirmation.That-Vela-Fella (talk)01:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to say that I edited your post on theTalk:Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia page to fix the PMID references up - hope you don't mind! For future reference, all you need to do is to type PMID then the number - no square brackets required. All you need to do if posting a ref from pubmed is to remember to take the colon out. Thanks!Nmg2015:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, once upon a time you contributed to a discussion concerning a chart on thePsychoactive drug article, which was a Venn diagram depicting a classification system for psychoactive substances created byUser:Thoric. I was under the impression that the community had spoken and that the chart had been deemedoriginal research, and indeed the chart has been absent from the article for almost a year, but it has recently re-appeared and its creator is lobbying heavily for its inclusion. I would greatly appreciate your comments in therenewed discussion. Thanks!Steve Carlson^Talk00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that makes three of us on wikipedia...and all aussies. the oher isUser:Anonymaus...Cheers,Casliber (talk·contribs)07:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day again - I have been working onmajor depressive disorder which is now at FAC -Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates/Major depressive disorder - I have been asked to get some more eyes on it, which I think is a good thing anyway, so I'd be grateful if you can see scope for improvements etc. Cheers,Casliber (talk·contribs)23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out theMedicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to joinWikiProject Medicine (signuphere).

WhatamIdoing (talk)20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related toCardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants atCardiology task force Participants.ECG Unit (Welcome!)

--Addbot (talk)00:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk)22:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice you were involved in structuring the Wikipedia pageDepression (mood). The article, has undergone considerable change over the last 6 months or so. I am defending the present form, while advocating for an additional section on the talk page. I'm not sure how you'll respond to its present form, so please don't take this as canvassing. I'd appreciate your thoughts on its structure and content, if you have the time and interest. Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk)03:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library(talk |edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read theBooks & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to givefree, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come andsign up :)

Cheers,Ocaasi^{t| c}20:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mental disorders due to a general medical condition has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.Marcocapelle (talk)20:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Impulse-control disorder not elsewhere classified has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.Marcocapelle (talk)20:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mental status examination has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)04:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]